(Excerpted from Big Oil & Their Bankers: Chapter 17: Caspian Sea Oil Grab)
According to Kurt Wulff of the oil investment firm McDep Associates, the Four Horsemen, romping in their new Far East pastures, saw asset increases from 1988-1994 as follows: Exxon Mobil- 54%, Chevron Texaco- 74%, Royal Dutch/Shell- 52% and BP Amoco- 54%. Big Oil had more than doubled its collective assets in six short years.
This quantum leap in global power had everything to do with the takeover of the old Soviet oil patch and the subsequent impoverishment of its birthright owners.
While the Four Horsemen gorged on Russian and Central Asian oil, Wall Street investment bankers were facilitating the oil grab and ripping off the Russian Treasury.
Salomon Smith Barney’s Philbro Energy oil trading subsidiary set up shop in Moscow. Goldman Sachs was hired by Yeltsin to lure foreign capital to Russia. Heading the Russian Goldman Sachs team was Robert Rubin, later Clinton Secretary of Treasury & Citigroup CEO. CS First Boston took a 20% stake in Lukoil, in partnership with BP Amoco.
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar was in charge of Russia’s IMF-mandated economic reforms. Gaidar knew that the oil and gas sector was the key to Rubin’s plan. Russian opposition parties cried foul, saying US economists and the IMF were taking control of Russia’s economic and political system. In 1994 Clinton FBI Director Louis Freeh, flaunting Constitutional restraints, personally opened an FBI office in Moscow. 
In 1997 Freeh’s FBI led a half-hearted investigation into a growing conflict of interest scandal involving top-level Harvard economists who had been overseeing Russia’s privatization program in tandem with Rubin and Gaidar. Russia criticized the FBI probe, calling it a whitewash of the facts.
The controversy centered on the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), which ran several of Russia’s privatization schemes. HIID Directors Jonathan Hay and Jeffrey Sachs held investments in multinationals which benefited from an $89 million World Bank loan to Russia which HIID had arranged. Russia’s top securities regulator Dmitry Vasiliev spotted this and other irregularities, terminating HIID’s contract with the Russian government.  But not before the Wall Street investment bankers had looted the Russian Treasury, leading to the Russian economic collapse of 1998.
In 1999 the Bank of New York, which worked with CS First Boston in selling off Russian ownership in Lukoil, was indicted by a New York court for laundering over $10 billion in drug money for Russian mobsters, all of whom held Israeli passports. According to Dr. Aldo Milinkovich, consultant to numerous New York financial firms, “The Israelis have infiltrated and manipulated the post-Soviet economy in Russia in pretty much the same way they have infiltrated and now manipulate Washington and Wall Street.”
At the center of the scandal was Bill Casey Hardy Boy Itzak “Bruce” Rappaport. He set up clearing affiliate Benex, which laundered drug money for three wealthy Russian/Israeli bankers.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky was one of the wealthiest people in Russia. He ran Menatep Bank until it was shut down. In November 2003, Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a crackdown on Khodorkovsky, relieving him of his controlling share in Yukos Oil.
Shlomo Mogulevich has been called the “Meyer Lansky of Russia” and was described by US law enforcement as a major arms and drugs trafficker.
Konstantin Kagalovsky was in charge of doling out IMF/World Bank funding to the Yeltsin government.  All three held Israeli citizenship.
Rappaport, the National Bank of Oman crony, began buying Bank of New York shares during the 1980’s. He set up Bank of New York-Intermaritime in Geneva. The company owns Swiss American Holdings, SA Panama, which the US government identified as key to a 1998 money laundering scandal involving Antigua Prime Minister John Fitzgerald. 
Rappaport arranged US financing for purchase of an Antigua melon farm by an Israeli Mossad agent named Sarafati. The Israeli Defense Ministry funneled arms through Rappaport and Sarafati’s farm to Columbian cocaine kingpin and death squad godfather Jose Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha. Mossad and British commandos trained Medellin Cartel death squads in a CIA program funded by President Reagan’s much-touted Project Democracy.
The Panamanian ship Sea Point that delivered Gacha his weapons was owned by CIA’s hand-picked Panamanian President Guillermo Endara, who was installed after the Noriega putsch. In 1989 that same ship had been busted off the Mexican coast carrying a massive shipment of cocaine. Endara and Gacha co-owned the Panamanian drug laundry Banco Interoceanico. 
Corruption was the modus operandi during the economic privatization of Russia, the Caucuses and Eastern Europe. In 1996 Ukraine’s government-owned aircraft factory sold a small fleet of Antonov-32B twin-engine turboprops to Columbia cocaine cartels.  In 1997 Pratt & Whitney, subsidiary of US defense giant United Technologies, was fined $14.8 million for diverting $10 million in US military aid into a slush fund controlled by Israeli Air Force officer Rami Dotan. Saudi billionaire Sulaiman Olayan owned a big chunk of United Technologies, as did James Baker. The slush fund was used for CIA/Mossad destabilization efforts in Central Asia. 
A 1997 Russian FSB report cited Alfa Group for involvement in drug trafficking. Top company executives had met with representatives of the Cali Cartel. The report stated that Alfa worked with a Chechen crime family, which was in charge of the drug smuggling. An Alfa Group subsidiary is Tyumen Oil, which teamed up with Brown & Root in an oil and gas development project that received ExIm Bank financing.  Brown & Root is a subsidiary of Halliburton, where Dick Cheney was Chairman and CEO at the time.
In mid-February 2001 Alfa Group bought Marc Rich Holdings from its namesake fugitive Israeli financier. Rich lives in Switzerland after being pardoned by President Clinton as he exited the White House. Rich is an associate of Rappaport.
Halliburton and its subsidiaries received $3.8 billion in federal contracts and taxpayer-insured loans from 1996-2000.  On July 9, 2002, amidst a tidal wave of corporate accounting scandals, the Washington D.C.-based Judicial Watch filed suit in Dallas charging Cheney and other Halliburton directors with making millions selling stock options while cooking the Halliburton books just before the company’s share price plummeted. The SEC announced its own investigation of Halliburton the same day, but nothing came of it.
Chechen Drug Lords
As Saudi Taliban backer Sheik Khalid bin Mahfouz’ Nimir Petroleum dug into Kazakhstan oil fields with Chevron Texaco, the Unocal-led Centgas was offering to pay the Afghan Taliban government $100 million a year to run their pipeline across Afghanistan in a deal orchestrated by Unocal adviser Hamid Karzai- now Afghanistan’s President. Centgas arranged high-level meetings in Washington between Taliban officials and the State Department via Unocal insider and President Bush Jr. NSA Zalmay M. Khalilzad, now US Ambassador to US-occupied Iraq. In 2005 Chevron Texaco bought Unocal.
Bush blocked US Secret Service investigations into US-based al-Qaeda terrorist sleeper cells while he continued to negotiate secretly with Taliban officials. The last meeting was in August 2001 just five weeks before 911. Bush Administration and Saudi officials offered aid to the Taliban to seal the Four Horsemen deal, telling the Islamists, “You either accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.”
In 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski, graying but not straying from his role as go-between for the international banking houses and their global intelligence networks, wrote The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geopolitical Imperatives. In his book the BP Amoco board member suggested that the key to global power lies in the control of Eurasia and that the “key to controlling Eurasia is controlling the Central Asian Republics”. He singled out Uzbekistan as key to controlling Central Asia.
In 1999 a series of explosions rocked the Uzbek capital of Tashkent. Islamic al-Qaeda-trained militants were to blame. The rebels, who call themselves the Islamic Party of Turkistan, attempted to assassinate socialist President Islam Karimov. They attacked the fertile Fergana Valley in an attempt to disrupt harvests and the Uzbek food supply, Pink Plan-style. Two years earlier Enron had attempted to negotiate a $2 billion deal with the Uzbek state-owned Neftegas with help from the Bush White House. 
When that effort and other privatization attempts were rebuffed in 1998 by Tashkent, the Islamist attacks on Uzbekistan were ratcheted up. After the “carpet of bombs” began raining down on neighboring Afghanistan in October 2001, Uzbekistan, along with neighbors Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, was soon sporting new US military bases. In 2005 Kyrgyzstan’s President Askar Akayev was deposed in the “Tulip Revolution”. Within days Donald Rumsfeld was meeting with the new leaders. 
The timing of both Brzezinski’s book and Bush Administration threats to the Taliban are instructive since both occurred prior to the 911 attacks, the perfect pretext for the massive Central Asian intervention that Brzezinski, Bush and their Illuminati bosses were advocating.
Dr. Johannes Koeppel, former German Defense Ministry official and adviser to NATO Secretary General Manfred Werner, explained of this rash of “coincidences” in November 2001, “The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberger Group, have prepared for and are now implementing open world dictatorship (which will be established) within the next five years. They are not fighting against terrorists. They are fighting against citizens.”
Central Asia came to produce 75% of the world’s opium just as the Four Horsemen and their CIA guard dogs were moving into the region. While the US issues humiliating certifications to judge countries on their ability to stop drug traffic, Big Oil produces 90% of the chemicals needed to process cocaine and heroin, which CIA surrogates grow, process and distribute. CIA chemists were the first to produce heroin.
As Ecuadorian Presidential Candidate Manuel Salgado put it, “This world order which professes the cult of opulence and the growing economic power of illegal drugs, doesn’t allow for any frontal attack aimed at destroying narco-trafficking because that business, which moves $400 billion annually, is far too important for the leading nations of world power to eliminate. The US…punishes those countries which don’t do enough to fight against drugs, whereas their CIA boys have built paradises of corruption throughout the world with the drug profits.”
The Afghan “paradise of corruption” yielded 4,600 metric tons of opium in 1998-1999. When the Taliban cracked down on opium production poppy fields bloomed to the north where CIA/ISI-sponsored Islamists were fighting in Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Chechnya, Dagestan and Kashmir. Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid says the Saudis paid the moving bill. 
The US had harassed socialist India for decades, using Kashmiri fundamentalists based in Pakistan. It was no coincidence that the proposed Enron pipeline to their Dabhol, India white elephant was to run right through the heart of Kashmir.
Ever since Russian Foreign Minister Yevgeny Primakov proposed a “strategic triangle” between India, Russia and China as a counterbalance to “US global hegemony” in 1998, US establishment think tanks have been scratching their heads at how to derail the idea. The Harvard-linked Olin Institute proposed attacking India, the weakest part of the triangle.
Not content with the Polish Solidarist-led grab of Eastern Europe and the partitioning of Soviet Central Asian republics, the CFR/Bilderberger crowd now used mujahadeen surrogates to further squeeze Russia.
In 1994 35,000 Chechen fighters were trained at Amir Muawia camp in Afghanistan’s Khost Province, the camp Osama bin Laden built for the CIA. In July 1994 Chechen Commander Shamil Basayev graduated from Amir Muawia and was sent to advanced guerrilla tactics camp at Markazi-i-Dawar, Pakistan. There he met with Pakistani ISI officials, who have historically excelled at carrying out the CIA’s dirty laundry.  The other Chechen rebel Commander was Saudi-born Emir al-Khattab.
The Chechen Islamists took over a big chunk of the Golden Crescent heroin trade, working with Chechen crime families affiliated with the Russian Alfa Group that did business with Halliburton. They also had ties to the Albanian heroin labs being run by the NATO-backed Kosovo Liberation Army.
A Russian FSB report stated that the Chechens began buying real estate in Kosovo in 1997, just prior to the US-led partition of Kosovo from Yugoslavia. Chechen Commander Emir al-Khattab set up guerrilla camps to train KLA Albanian rebels. The camps were funded by the heroin trade, prostitution rings and counterfeiting. Recruits were invited by Chechen Commander Shamil Basayev and funded by the House of Saud Muslim Brotherhood Islamic Relief Organization. 
On September 20, 2002, after emerging from a White House meeting on Iraq with President Bush, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov dodged all questions regarding another round of US harassment targeting Iraq. Instead he stated that the al Qaeda-trained Chechen rebels still targeting his country were being given safe-haven by the closest US ally in Central Asia- the government of Georgia.
In 2003 the National Endowment for Democracy & other CIA-front NGOs sponsored the phony Rose Revolution, which brought IMF stooge Mikheil Saakashvili to power in Georgia. The Four Horsemen’s strategic Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline would eventually run right through the Georgian capital Tblisi.
A month later Chechen rebels strapped with explosives entered a Moscow theater, taking hundreds hostage. The timing was interesting, since the Russians were refusing to go along with Bush’s plans to invade Iraq. Nearly 200 people died after Russian Special Forces stormed in to overtake the Chechens. The US news media, fixated on al Qaeda’s every move just months earlier, ignored the link between the Chechens and their bin Laden-led cohorts. Instead they blamed the Russians. A week after the incident Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility for the siege on a rebel website.  Kremlin officials saw Basayev’s comments as a smokescreen to protect Chechnya’s elected leader Aslan Maskhadov, who was on his way to Sweden to take part in a conference on Chechnya. Basayev was killed in Ingushetia in July 2006.
For all the hoopla over the Caspian Sea oil bonanza and after all the CIA-bred carnage wrought upon the region of Central Asia and the Russian Republic on behalf of the Four Horsemen, the huge deposits of black gold may not materialize.
According to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy 2003, the two countries which Big Oil had counted on to become the next Saudi Arabia – Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan – have proven oil reserves of only 63 billion and 26 billion barrels, respectively. The report also stated that Russia itself, torn asunder by Big Oil and their spooks, possessed a mere 22 billion barrels of crude reserves. It is also possible that BP is lying, using the phony “peak oil” shortage argument to rationalize gauging consumers.
Whatever the case, tired of Four Horsemen scams, since 2005 a now wide awake Russia has been steadily re-nationalizing its energy sector.
 “Legendary FBI Director Sets Up Shop in Moscow”. USA Today. 7-5-94
 “Russia Cuts Harvard Links in Flap, Throwing Aid Programs into Disarray”. Steve Liesmen & Robert Keatley. Wall Street Journal. 6-2-97. p.A19
 “Israelis Behind Bank of New York Scam”. Martin Mann. The Spotlight. 9-6-99. p.5
 “US Fails to Recover Drug Money in Antigua”. Michael Allen. Wall Street Journal. 11-2-98. p.A27
 Dope Inc.: The Book That Drove Kissinger Crazy. Editors of Executive Intelligence Review. Washington, DC. 1992 p.19
 “Ukraine Leasing Aircraft to Columbian Drug Traffickers”. Los Angeles Times. 2-19-96
 “Pratt & Whitney to Settle Israeli Slush Fund Case”. Missoulian. 5-21-97
 Center for Public Integrity. January 2000.
 Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth. Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. Paris 2001
 “Central Asia Unveiled”. Mike Edwards. National Geographic. 2-02
 Reaping the Whirlwind: The Taliban Movement in Afghanistan. Michael Griffin. Pluto Press. London. 2001. p.124
 “The Geostrategy of Plan Columbia”. Manuel Salgado Tamayo. Covert Action Quarterly. Winter 2001. p.37
 Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil and Fundamentalism in Central Asia. Ahmed Rashid. Yale University Publishing. New Haven, CT. 2001.
 “Who is Osama bin Laden?” Michel Chossudovsky. www.copvcia.com 12-17-01
 “Rebel Warlord Takes Credit for Theatre Seige”. Springfield News Leader. 11-2-02
Dean Henderson is the author of Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network, The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries and Das Kartell der Federal Reserve. Subscribe to his Left Hook weekly column FREE at www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com
a multi-headed hydra reaches America’s East coast
Unless one is standing in front of an attacking army, one has little chance of being hit by the military. Simply, in most situations military units have no jurisdiction over civilians. Military police can easily be spotted on Tel Aviv streets; yet they can’t speak to a civilian, even if he belongs to the reserve army. The maximum they are allowed to do is to call the police and denounce the civilian. Sadly, this rule of thumb has a few exceptions that are related mainly to the work of the IDF Military Intelligence Directorate, AMAN is its hebrew acronym. Due to its secretive nature, the details of its activities (and violations of human rights) are difficult to elucidate, though many details are partially accessible over the media. Today, May 2, 2012, an important hint was published in the Hebrew media, when Brigadier General (still colonel in the picture) Sima Vaknin-Gil—Israel Military Censor—announced that the IDF has launched a new system to monitor information on social media—mainly Facebook and Twitter—as well as blogs and news sites. This adds to recent bits of information to form a chilling picture.
Sima Vaknin Gil
Israel Military Censor
Her announcement showed—for the first time publicly—that Israel is related to CAZAB (see MI5, CAZAB and Israel). Ms. Vaknin-Gil claimed that “the new system will examine information using keywords labeled in advance.” This is exactly the way ECHELON—the worldwide listening system operated by the CAZAB network—operates. As claimed in the past here, Israel is an unofficial member of CAZAB with a listening station placed not far from Gaza, in Tze’elim. What Ms. Vaknin-Gil forgot to tell us, is how the system treats information published and stored beyond Israel’s still-undefined borders, and by non-Israeli citizens; a good example of this is the recentpublication of Israeli-censored information by Jewish-American blogger Richard Silverstein. Will AMAN attempt to censor this in the future? Ms. Vaknin-Gil didn’t commit an unintentional omission; simply, AMAN doesn’t want us to know the details of its web-operations in order to instill in us an Orwellian 1984-style state of fear. Oddly enough, the answer to this came from another recent incident.
AMAN—and its relatives, the Shin Beth and Mossad—work as a multi-headed hydra; one of the main hints that an event is related to one of these terror organizations is the redundancy in the details. Civilian operations can seldom afford the unlimited budget offered to the intelligence services by the unsuspecting taxpayers. Israel’s Military Censor is technically part of AMAN, but it works as an independent unit. Its head is appointed directly by the Defense Minister—a highly unusual step—and is only subject to parliamentary and judicial oversight. Not even the Minister of Defense can give orders to it. The Military Censor has authority to suppress information it deems compromising from being made public in the media. Probably the most famous event ever censored was the Kav 300 picture (see Kav 300 Forever, picture is reproduced below); the picture was exposed to the Israeli public only after the New York Times published it. This is typical; Israeli news outlets often circumvent the censor by reporting stories “as quoted from foreign news sources,” which are not subject to the restrictions of the Israeli military censor. The trial of Mordechai Vanunu, the assassination attempt on Khaled Mashal (see Mossad, Sonic Weapons & Haled Mashal) and events related to Operation Defensive Shield and Operation Cast Lead were also famously censored.
Shin Beth Assassins Seconds Before Action | Kav 300 Affair
A clear sign of the Military Censor power is the length of his service. A regular post of an IDF officer lasts two years. Yet, Avner Bar-On served as Military Censor in 1951-1953 and 1955-1977. Ytzhak Shani served between 1977 and 2000. The current censor has been in office since 2005. This is highly irregular and allows them to accumulate immense power. Despite what the law says, this power is not limited to Israel. If they want to target foreign media, they can use other units of Israel’s extensive intelligence corps. One of them is the diplomatic corps; diplomats all over the world are nothing but an arm of their country’s intelligence services. In the last week of April, Israel attempted to censor not an unknown American blogger, but a well known CBS program named 60 Minutes.
Israel Ambassador in the USA
On April 24, 60 Minutes aired a segment entitled “Christians of the Holy Land” that offered an unprecedented look into the Christian reality in Holy Land, under Israel’s occupation. Acting as Israel Military Censor in the USA, Israel Ambassador in the USA—Michael Oren—called the Chairman of CBS News and the Executive Producer of 60 Minutes and protested the report before it was aired. 60 Minutes reporter, Bob Simon, said that he had never received such a call in his many years as a journalist. The red-faced Israeli ambassador shamelessly accused Christians for being anti-Semites. The American viewers could witness first hand an extraordinary example of censorship and blatant lies by those who claim to be the “only democracy in the Middle East.” The astonishing video is attached below, courtesy of CBS:
The world has clearly seen an attempt by Israel to censor American media, because it published a piece which was not to the liking of the Zionist state. The Israel Military Censor is trying to influence a foreign country, and the authorities of that country have not reacted at all. A long time ago, I published an Open Letter to the ADL. Let me cite a short sentence from it: ‘…after all you claim to “fight anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defend democratic ideals and protect civil rights for all” and “defend the security of Israel and Jews worldwide.” Your motto is: “To stop the defamation of the Jewish people…to secure justice and fair treatment for all.” You are doing that continuously since 1913; almost a century of undisputed, undiscriminating professionalism.’ Dear leaders of the Anti-Defamation League and their parent organization, the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, I want to file a new complaint at your office, this time for violation of democratic ideals and civil rights by the State of Israel in the USA; I do that despite your not having answered my first complaint. Will you be faithful to your honorable principles and take action against the State of Israel? Or will you show—again—that you are nothing but an unofficial American arm of Israeli bigotry?
The Respect Party has scored another victory in Bradford winning 5 seats in Bradford Council. The leader of Bradford Council Labour Candidate Ian Greenwood has also lost his seat.
Will the 3 main political parties in the U.K. get the message? The messages are many but the main points are that the people of Bradford are against the endless wars which have cross party support in the U.K. and also that we can’t see any difference to our lives which ever of the main parties is in power. Muslims were traditionally Labour voters but the Labour party cannot count on that any more.
Muslims in Bradford have woken up to the fact that they can actually make a difference by getting out and voting, something which is controversial in itself as it is interpreted by some as wrong to be a participant in any form of goverment which is not shariah.
George Galloway’s Respect party wins Bradford council seats
Read about it in the Guardian here
Gilad Atzmon, The Wandering Who? A Study of Jewish Identity Politics (Ropley, Hampshire, UK: Zero Books, 2011). Pp.177. Paperback. ISBN-13: 9781846948756. Review by Mazin Qumsiyeh
Copy Right: Holy Land Studies, May 2012, Vol. 11, No. 1 : pp. 99-101
About nine years ago, I entertained the notion of writing a book on “group identities” so that I can understand these concepts that cause a lot of the ills of society. Both WWI and WWII emanated from interpretations of nationalism (a group identity) and the conflict in Palestine mostly emanates from another group identity called Zionism. The horrors of the Crusaders came from the group identity of Christendom. There is an issue now with the notions of (Political) “Islamism” ala Osama Bin Laden. I am still exploring and reading on this issue from different authors and thus was intrigued to read the book by Gilad Atzmon that addresses this concept within Jewish communities.
Atzmon concluded from personal experience that he does not like Jewish group identity politics and any other form of what he calls “marginal group identity”. Atzmon starts by explaining his own upbringing as a third generation Israeli whose grandfather was a member of the underground terror organization the Irgun Gang and how via Jazz (and a questioning mind) he “left Chosen-ness behind to become an ordinary human being”.
Atzmon is accused by many of being a “self-hating Jew” and an “anti-Semite”. To the former label he admits but he strongly objects to the second label. His book represents in many ways, a clarification of why he believes what he does. He says (p. 15) that he distinguishes Jews (the people), Judaism (the religion), and Jewish-ness (the ideology). He has no problem with the first two but strongly argues against the third. He uses quotes that show that those who believe in this ideology put Jewish-ness above all other attributes. Thus he understands Chaim Weizmann’s statement that “there are no English, French, German, or American Jews, but only Jews living in England, France, Germany or America.” This third category that Weizmann belongs to even when overlapping with the first or second category tends, according to Atzmon, to overwhelm all other and represent a strong marginal politics.
Using these definitions, Atzmon proceeds to explain how and why this belief (identity politics of Jewish-ness) was critical in the error of going to war on Iraq, in the spying by Jonathan Pollard, in the neoconservative ideologies of Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, and even in economic decisions of Alan Greenspan. He makes clear that he does not see these things as Jewish conspiracies but merely independent actions based on a set of political/ideological discourse (the Jewish identity politics). My thought is that individual readers should not judge this based on hearsay but should do it for themselves by reading the book. If one gets convinced by Atzmon’s analysis, one could get to the radical conclusion that he makes that “one can hardly endorse a universal philosophy while being identified politically as a Jew” (p. 39).
According to Atzmon, the problems with marginal identity politics such as those of “Jewish-ness” and its alter-ego Zionism is that they are defined by negation: “the political Jew is always against something or set apart from something else. This is far from being an ideal recipe for a peaceful, ethical life, driven by reconciliation and harmony.” (p. 48).
But Atzmon goes further and here I believe is where his thesis draws the wrath of some in the establishment and overtly sensitive crowds: Zionism is a “tribal Jewish preservation project” and “within the Zionist framework, the Israelis colonize Palestine and the Jewish Diaspora is there to mobilise lobbies by recruiting International support. The Neocons transform the American army into an Israeli mission force. Anti Zionists of Jewish descent (and this may even include proud self-haters such as myself) are there to portray an image of ideological plurality and ethical concern.”(p. 70). And in the secular Jewish political discourse, there is no need for God, political Jews are taught to value the Jewish collective and inflict damage to others in the name of this collective according to Atzmon.
Many things he says do make sense even if we may quibble with other things. In explaining “pre-traumatic stress syndrome” he explains that any Jews are taught to anticipate negative things and that in this regard those who actually experienced the negative things (e.g. holocaust survivors) seem more rational and far less hateful of the other than the Jews who did not experience those directly. The latter may even invent events to justify the perpetual fear and hatred. I thought of this as I thought of all the Zionists who lied, cheated, pressured, cajoled, threatened us and our friends and employers and contrasted those with fellow human beings who happen to have a Jewish background (including many holocaust survivors) who stood with us in fighting for human rights. He explained to me that in this area his study and personal experience were the most significant of his controversial findings.
Atzmon argues rather convincingly that “it is not the idea of being unethical that torments Israelis and their supporters, but the idea of being ‘caught out’ as such” (p. 84). This phobia according to Atzmon explains the amount of death and destruction that Israel sows in its surroundings in an attempt to resolve or at least distract from this inner conflict between the tribal and the universal. But this only adds to the phobia for to Atzmon ‘the more they insist on loving themselves for who they think they are, the more they loath themselves for what they have become.” (p. 86). He claims that that leaves three escape routes: total segregation, return to orthodoxy (religion), and flight from “Jewish-ness” (an option he had chosen).
I see in Atzmon writings a number of memes that are seeping into common discourse. A meme is a persuasive idea that spreads in a population like a useful gene spreads in a population. Some of those memes include:
-The now well-established fact that Jews are not a racial group but an ideological religious belief that spread many centuries ago among people of diverse background (this meme came from studies of the Khazars and others by authors like Arthur Koestler, Kevin Alan Brooks, Shlomo Sand, and now Atzmon)
-The idea of a conflict between chauvinistic nationalism and universal humanism.
-The weird mix of religious heritage/belief with tribal notions in Jewish political discourse
-The distorted recruitment of archeological and other studies to support the political ideology of a connection between Jews of today and Israelites of the bible
-The recruitment of the ideology of suffering as a quasi-religious belief that is no longer subject to normal historical examinations (and in fact shielded from such historical examination via laws)
In some places, one could argue that Atzmon goes too far in his conclusions or does not delve as deep as possible in the nuances of identity politics. For example, he argues that those who identify themselves as politically Jewish but anti-Zionist serve the same goal as Zionist Jews by keeping the debate “within the family” (p. 102). In another chapter (Chapter 19), Atzmon analyzes the book of Esther and its associated Purim holiday in a political modern context to argue that the lessons drawn from the modern emphasis on the book of Esther (which does not mention God) is the need for Jews to rely on themselves and to get to positions of power in Goyim (gentile) societies to impact their own future. While that interpretation explains the Zionist lobbies in Western countries, some people who are not tribal in their thinking may draw other lessons from the book of Esther or at least downplay it and emphasize other parts of the Torah..
In another instance Atzmon questions the sincerity of a Zionist who was part of the group that collaborated with Hitler and who later reported to Lenni Brenner (a historian of the Nazi-Zionist collaboration) that they were wrong and that he is now an American with American loyalties. Atzmon thinks that this relates to the old edict “of being a Jew at home, and a gentile in the streets” (Moses Mendelssohn’s “Haskala Mantra”).
One could quibble with some of these notions, connections, and conclusions. Atzmon’s opinions are to be respected even if some of them are based on subjective judgments about other individuals’ emotions and motivations. That is because many of his opinions are also shaped by personal experiences. Other parts of the book are intimate and personal and I do not see how Atzmon’s detractors can challenge him on that. For example I fully agree with him that “fighting racism for real primarily entails opposing the racist within” (p. 95). Each of us must fight the demons within before we challenge the demons without. I found these sections of the book which discuss Atzmon’s own reflections on his past and evolution of his thinking to be the most fascinating and informative.
As for the other (related) themes and notions presented in this fascinating book, I think this is a very important dialogue to have, even if some of us may disagree with some interpretations. The 130 years of Zionist colonization have resulted in the devastation of a native society and culture resulting in 7 million refugees of a total of 11 million (the rest remain in shrinking “people warehouses”). Further, after several wars and countless lives destroyed, it is definitely time to discuss in more detail the motives and the psychology behind Zionism. The attempt to censor and shut down this debate is backfiring. More and more people are spreading memes that challenge the tribalism that lead to conflicts and war. People can choose to dismiss these things and avoid the dialog or can engage in it. I think it is far more constructive to engage in it than to dismiss it out of hand.
Is Rupert Murdoch a ‘fit and proper person’ to run a major international company? After months of agonising hearings in front of a “select committee” of MPs, the answer to that question has come back as a resounding, no! It doesn’t take a genius to work that one out, or all that time. One only has to look at a Murdoch publication to see the propaganda in all its narcissistic glamour and glitz. Rupert Murdoch and his News International Empire control most of Media in the English-speaking world, and he has ruled like a Zionist Emperor for twenty years; when politicians have come and gone, he and his gang have remained.
Is Rupert Murdoch Jewish? Recently Google has been sued in France for suggesting that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish. French organization says Google search engine’s auto-complete is anti-Semitic. But as someone once said…. You don’t have to be jewish to be a Zionist. Murdoch is not Jewish, but does he support the Zionist ideology?
- He bragged he invented the word “chutzpah.”
- Got an award from the ADL
- Award from the Simon Wiesenthal Center
- Its clear Murdoch’s Press is pro Israel.
So yes I would say there is great deal of evidence that Murdoch is a Zionist.
Murdoch himself was suitably penitent on May1st when the report was delivered; he is lucky not to be in jail, if there was any real justice then he should be in jail.
“Today, the UK’s Parliamentary select committee on culture, media and sport released its full report on issues surrounding phone hacking at the News of the World.
“The report affords us a unique opportunity to reflect upon the mistakes we have made and further the course we have already completed to correct them.”
May 1st Rupert Murdoch
But luckily for him all the really serious trouble was paid off, arrested of or met with mysterious accidents some time ago. Despite this Murdoch’s reputation has been tarnished, but just recently all the board of News International have given Murdoch their full support – presumably he has bugged all their phones too. Well, let’s be fair, to say Murdoch is behind phone hacking is ludicrous. People in power are not so stupid, they third party all their risk to fall guys, who will take all the blame if they are discovered. Plausible deniability means you can always blame practices on rogue elements of “which you were unaware”.
Is Louise Mensch a British Zionist?
Enjoyed PM’s speech at Conservative Friends of Israel lunch
— Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) December 13, 2010
“Conservative MP Louise Mensch has joined magic man Uri Geller in backing the American rabbi Shmuley Boteach to take over from Lord Sacks as chief rabbi.
Mrs Mensch, who is married to Jewish music manager Peter Mensch, said she owed Rabbi Boteach her “lifelong love of, and appreciation for, the Jewish faith”.
Well at the very least, she is a good friend of Israel and married to a Jew herself. So it does not surprising that Louise Mensch defends Murdoch because it would appear that they are part of the same Zionist regime.
What we need is reform, reform of the Media, Politics, Police, Military, Banks and the Schools. As long as small groups of powerful individuals can control these organisations, we will continue to see lies pushed as truth, resulting in wide-spread injustices and war. We need to take back the media from people like Murdoch and their brand of journalism. Now, after the Leveson report we can see clearly that Murdoch’s brand of journalism was without ethics, oversight and “Wilfully blind”.
Looking the other way
Let’s not forget it has been Murdoch’s press that has been leading us all to war for some time now, despite there being no real intelligence of WMD in IRAQ, everyone became “wilfully blind” again. What we see here is a form of ‘supremacy’ at work. Theirs is a self-justifying narcissism, they don’t report on stories. Rather, they create them to suit their own agenda. Their money and power buys and guarantees their immunity. Murdoch may have got away with it again, but everyone knows the Emperor has no clothes.
And finally the un-edited phone hacking report.
The trials of Jewish-American political scientist Norman Finkelstein.
fearing an imminent war, Netanyahu seeks more stable government
Predicting future news is a risky business; yet, this time I am walking on thick ice: Israel will announce in the next weeks early elections to the Knesset. Israel being a parliamentary regime, means that a new government will probably run the country by the end of this year. The announcement is not official yet, but Reuven Rivlin (the Knesset Speaker, see Rivlin: On a Good Pope, a Bad Politician and an Evil General) said yesterday during the inauguration of the Knesset’s summer 2012 sitting: “It seems this is the Knesset’s last session, since the entire country—coalition and opposition—agree that early elections are good, so that the next Knesset will be able to take harsh decisions for the life of our people,” he said. Almost formalizing this informal statement, Netanyahu added that the issue of early elections “would be clarified soon.”
The regular elections process was scheduled to take place in late 2013, but that timing was not good for Netanyahu’s government. The time slot being considered for the early elections runs from the end of August to the beginning of November, which is when the United States will be holding presidential elections. In the Israeli reality, the best timing would be before the three-week fall holidays, which begins with Rosh Hashanah on September 17, and ends with Simhat Torah on October 8. The holidays will allow extra-time in the coalitional talks that would precede the establishment of the next government. If everything goes as apparently planned, the day of the presidential elections in the USA will be witnessed by a newly installed government in Israel. The correlation with the American presidential elections is not a coincidence; Israel will be in a tough situation after them—no matter who the winner is—and Netanyahu prefers to reach that point with a stable government which is not shadowed by coming elections.
War in December?
Obama is not popular in Israel. Two main issues contribute to that. One is the controversial American attitude towards the Israeli nuclear program in recent years. Beyond limitations on workers of Negev Nuclear Research Center in Dimona and the center itself, President Obama has postponed a Middle East conference on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, while Israel was expecting its complete cancellation (see Hiroshima, Tel Aviv: The December 2012 NPT Conference for a review of the issue). Moreover, President Obama thwarted Israel’s war on Iran, at least until the November 2012 presidential elections. Israel got in exchange generous funding for its Iron Dome offensive anti-missiles system, but that is not good enough. For the Zionists, “no war” means “no money.” Ehud Barak is unlikely to forgive Obama this brutish intervention on his personal profits (see USA Thwarts Israeli Attack on Iran).
This attitude is clear; Obama was never portrayed favorably in the state-backed Hebrew media. The Israeli administration wants the USA to change its position on at least two key issues regarding Israel’s nuclear program. On the other hand, Romney is a personal friend of Israel’s Prime Minister, and has already promised “he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu.” Game is over. Israel supports Romney (see Obama’s End? Israel Supports Romney). Yet, no matter who wins in America, after the elections Israel will be forced to take decisions regarding Iran.
When the main talk in Israel’s media is an imminent aggressive attack on Iran, the upcoming Nuclear Security Summit of December is not a comfortable option for the Zionist regime, especially since its main topic will be Israel’s aggressive nuclear program. The Israeli efforts to defer the conference were opened in the talks with the representative of the Finnish government, and are likely to intensify in the coming months. Israel claims that the conference should not be held until regimes in the region, particularly in Egypt and Syria, stabilize. This is highly ironic, considering Israel had a key role in destabilizing Syria (see Slicing Syria). Israel’s chances to cancel the summit are slim. The decision to proceed with the conference was incorporated in an agreement document issued by the 2010 conference. The U.S. State Department expressed “deep regret” about it, and Israel protested its inclusion; but the document was not repealed. Israel is still repeating its mantra, claiming that it would not sign the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons until a comprehensive Arab-Israel peace deal is in place.
If an agreement between the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—Russia, China, the United States, France and Britain—plus Germany) and Iran is achieved in their Baghdad meeting of May 2012, Israel will be in a tough position with all its policies plummeting into the deepest oceans. All its rhetoric would have been rendered as motivated by its will to begin a war no matter what. Losing legitimacy in the eyes of most of its electorate—as well as the entire world—is the worst thing that can happen to a regime. The Zionists are about to reach such a point, unless something dramatic happens (see West and Iran Step Closer to Agreement; Israel Worried. In this situation, the Knesset’s early elections are a reorganizational step attempting to assure better capabilities to answer what would probably be a harsh period.
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu | Peace as an Hoax
Kissinger was right!
A few readers approached me with a similar complaint. According to them, several of my analyses on Israel emphasize inner Jewish Wars, while barely mentioning international players. “What is David Cameron’s position on this,” they would ask, eager to know what the UK is about to do about Israel’s eternal transgressions. Henry Kissinger probably is not among my readers; but if he were, he would agree with me. Many years ago he said that Israeli politics are almost exclusively internal. Everything must be analyzed through the magnifying lenses of the Jewish Wars, other issues are secondary. One of the most dramatic instances of this principle was the Altalena Affair. In the 1940s, Ben Gurion and Begin fought over arms and ammunition smuggled by the Irgun aboard the Altalena. Ben Gurion feared the creation of a Fifth Column within the IDF, loyal to Begin rather than to the chain of command leading to Ben Gurion. Thus, he issued an ultimatum to the ship. The taunt was refused, and the subsequent armed conflict between the two forces led to the Altalena’s sinking and the death of sixteen Irgun and three IDF men. Nothing else mattered to all involved; neither the ongoing war with Arab countries nor the shaky international position of Ben Gurion’s fiefdom. The only thing that counted was the Ben Gurion-Begin war. Even now, mentioning the event in Israeli circles is considered bad taste.
Kissinger was right. Regardless of the international political situation faced by Netanyahu’s government, his concern is mainly internal. After all, he has a government capable of making decisions, especially if he declares an emergency situation and calls for a “unity government” encompassing all Zionist parties. This has been done in the past. Benjamin Netanyahu is a political predator and he smells blood in the air. There is a real opportunity for him to destroy two political enemies and to almost double his party’s strength at once. For the first time since Ariel Sharon founded Kadima—the Knesset’s largest party—the Knesset may feature after the upcoming elections a main party which is large enough to run a stable government.
In Upheaval in Ariel Sharon’s Party I reported on the recent change in the leadership of Kadima. Tzipi Livni’s defeat was so great that today, May 1, she quit the Knesset. Shaul Mofaz—who leads the party—already announced that his party is not ready for the elections. Kadima may lose not only its position as the largest party. Foreign Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman—leader of Yisrael Beiteinu—already announced his party will be the second largest after the Likud following the next elections.
Despite the fact that being Minister of Defense transforms him into the second most important politician in Israel, Ehud Barak is fighting for his political life. And he is losing. After winning back the leadership of the Labor party, Barak was sworn in as Minister of Defense in June 2007, as part of Prime Minister Olmert’s cabinet reshuffle. During December 2008 through January 2009, Barak led (as defense minister) Operation Cast Lead, which led to Israel being defined as a terror state. In the 2009 elections, the Labor Party he led won just 13 out of the 120 Knesset seats, making it the fourth largest party. Barak reached an agreement with Netanyahu under which Labor joined the governing coalition. Barak retained his position as Defense Minister. In January 2011, Labor Party leader Barak formed a breakaway party, Atzmaut (Independence), which enabled him to maintain his loyal Labor’s MK faction within Netanyahu’s government after Labor threatened to force Barak to leave the government. After Barak’s move, Netanyahu was able to maintain a majority government.
Barak’s preemptive move against the Labor party was successful on a tactical scale. He stayed in the government and in the same position. However, it was a strategic disaster. As of now, both parties—Labor and Atzmaut—face tragedy. The Labor admitted yesterday not having funds even for conducting polls. The main party of the Zionist movement for many years may become one of the smallish parties in the next Knesset. Ehud Barak’s party is in an ever worsening situation, it may not pass the votes’ threshold needed to enter the Knesset.
Not only the Likud is expected to come out as a winner of the next elections. Avigdor Lieberman may get stronger. So is Shas, a Mizrahi-Haredi party that became a pillar of the Zionist-Haredi alliance enabling the State of Israel (see Netanyahu’s Mule: On an Unholy Alliance). Every time they managed to create controversy, they augmented their strength; these days the return of Aryeh Deri—a former leader of the party—is succeeding to stir the party’s voters. Traditionally, Shas supports right wing extremists, as long as it gets control of the state’s religious institutions; the Likud will gladly pay this price as it has always done. Then, Yair Lapid—a former Chanel 2 anchor—is running as head of a new party and may win enough votes to become a member of the next coalition to govern Israel (see Torch Sets Israel Afire). Israel is turning so strongly rightwards, that—beyond all logic—its right hand may soon be at its left side.
In one sleek move, Netanyahu is about to get rid of his main political opponents. After the elections in Israel and America, he would be able to fulfill his dream of an attack on Iran with no significant opposition at home and with no political rival capable of stealing the show. The winds of war are about to become a tornado.
Hasan Afzal of “British Muslims for Israel” seems to have found a (possibly lucrative) new career working with the Zionists. Here is a recent initiative to promote Buy Israeli Goods.
The Quran has many refererences to the hypocrites, the people who during the Prophethood of Mohammed p.b.u.h. professed to be Muslims but worked against the Muslims to undermine Islam. People like Hasan Afzal are described exactly here in this Quranic explanation. Indeed, Allah s.w.t. created humans with all of our weaknesses, so who better to know what is in the hearts? Hasan Afzal and his ilk are described here in this verse of the Quran
“And when it is said to them: ‘Do not make mischief on earth’, they say ‘We are only peacemakers’” (2:11) “Verily, they are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive it not” (2:12).
One of the top priorities for the pro Israel lobby groups at this time is to control which speakers are allowed to address University I.S.O.C.s (University Islamic Societies). Hasan Afzal on his website Stand for Peace attempts to compile a list of extremist groups and individuals which, from the start loses any semblance of credibility by including the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. As deLiberation readers know the P.S.C. has been given the Kosher stamp of approval by Harry’s Place and the Jewish Chronicle, read here. Afzal tries typical Zionist tactics to smear Sheik Haitham using “guilt by association” linking him to Umar Farouk AbdulMutallab because he attended a course taught by Sheik Haitham.
Hasan Afzal has written for New Labour’s Progress group claiming that Universities are failing Muslim Students (this is not in reference to his own failure as a student) by allowing Muslims to listen to talks by Sheik Haitham al Haddad. Sheik Haitham is a member of the Shariah council and a highly educated Scholar of Islam, he speaks the truth about Islam based on the Quran and classical books, a speaker from pure sources.
Of course, if Muslims were to return to the teachings of Islam and become a strong and cohesive group, we would be able to do so much to change the Neo-Con/Zionist agenda of endless wars, lies, distortion and slavery to the world banking system. Islam has solutions to poverty and the world debt crisis. Islam is the target of the Neo-Cons and Zionists in the so called “War on Terror” and they believe that the best way to fight what they perceive as the main threat to their income from the war industry, is to separate Muslims from the Quranic or classical teachings of Islam.
The results of this agenda are seen in mosques, where certain teachings of the Quran are not mentioned or when mentioned are pushed aside as not apppropriate for the times we live in, or not appropriate for our present situation. Most Imams are afraid to remind Muslims of the obligations we all have towards our brothers and sisters who are being killed and oppressed by the Zio/NeoCon agenda.
Mr Afzal has a proposal to counter the teachings of such classic scholars as Sheik Haitham al Haddad. Universities must be told that such speakers are only allowed if a progressive liberal Muslim is allowed to speak alongside them. This seems to be the new tactic of the pro-Israel movement, where they have been failing to convince people that pro-Israel Jews have a right to dictate who speaks to audiences, who plays music and who would burn books written by those they do not like, they are now having to pursue an agenda of so called balance.
Progressive Liberal Muslims try to mix some aspects of Islam with things which go completely against Islam. One such example from the U.S.A. was called “The Progressive Muslim Union” – an organisation which is now disbanded but was apparently set up with the intention of pleasing the Bush administration. Such scholars who endorse them are known to Muslims as $cholars for Dollars. The P.M.U. group created its own downfall when it appointed a woman to lead the prayers as Imam. A woman cannot lead men in prayers and why would she want to with hundreds of men lined up behind her probably looking at her bum?
It seems that there is an agenda to separate Muslims from Quranic teachings similar to how the Jews who followed the Liberal or Reform movement were taken out of Jewish Orthodoxy. I remember a female Rabbi who came to our mosque as part of an interfaith initiative who sat and chatted to me about how she believes that the Bible is a book of legends. If a follower of a faith doesn’t believe in their own Scripture as divine revelation or divinely inspired, what is left? Muslim leaders should look at how that movement happened and learn how to avoid it happening to us.
Now in these troubled times it is the time to return to and stand firm by the classical teachings of Islam and not to be led astray by those with an agenda to undermine it.
In a recent Haaretz article, leading Israeli columnist Gideon Levy affirms that Zionism is pretty irrelevant as far as Israelis are concerned. Similar to the line I myself develop in The Wandering Who, Levy contends that Israelis do not understand what Zionism stands for. For them it is an archaic notion.
The meaning of it is simple. That which seems as a vivid ‘Zionist’ / ‘anti Zionist’ debate is in practice an internal Jewish Diaspora quarrel with no significant practical meaning.
Levy writes, “In 2012, the 64th year of the (Jewish) state, no one even knows for certain what remains of it (Zionism), what the role of Zionism is and how it is defined.”
“Who is a Zionist?” asks Levy. “The truth is that there is no answer. Not because Zionism was not a just cause – it was, even if it was tainted by unnecessary injustices, and not because it didn’t succeed. It was the greatest national success story of the 20th century. But that century is over and its greatest success story has been established. The national home arose, and now it is a regional power. Anyone who wanted to – about one-third of the Jewish people have – join it, and the door remains open to the rest.”
Zionism was clearly a Judeo-centric revolutionary idea, but as it seems, it achieved its goal in 1948. Hence, it isn’t surprising that contemporary Israelis fail to grasp the meaning of Zionism. If early Zionists promised to transform the Diaspora Jew into an civilised being, the Israelis, for some reason, see themselves as ‘civilised subjects’. They at least in their eyes, are the post revolutionary products.
Hence, Levy argues that “Zionism is no longer relevant, and its place is in the history books alone.” He suggests that “Zionism’s way has been lost to us (the Israelis). That was inevitable, because it has completed its task.”
Similar to the line of thought I develop in The Wandering Who, Levy also differentiates between Israeli patriotism and Zionism. “Anyone who contributes to the state is a worthy citizen and a decent patriot. Anyone who contributes to its institutions is a philanthropist – this has no connection to Zionism. Anyone who is required to serve in its army, exactly like anyone who is supposed to pay taxes to it, is fulfilling his legal obligations. This has no connection to Zionism or its values.”
However, as much as Levy is correct in his reading of the Israeli and the Israeli society, it may be possible that, being an Israeli, he misses the role of Zionism as a Jewish Diaspora collective symbolic identifier. The Jewish State has a clear and significant function within the contemporary Jewish Diaspora discourse. The vast majority of Diaspora Jews and Jewish institutions identify or affiliate with Israel and support its cause. It is also true that some Jews, are critical of Israel and its policies. A few of these Jews identify themselves as ‘anti Zionists.’ Yet, bearing Levy observation in mind , the meaning of it all is that the debate between the Zionists and their Jewish opponents (i.e anti Zionists) has very little political significance for Israelis, Israeli politics and even Palestinians. This debate is there to help Diaspora Jews to identify themselves politically, spiritually and socially. It has very limited practical or pragmatic meaning if any at all.
But it also seems as if Levy ignores the huge impact of Zionist and Lobbies within Western politics. In the USA, it is AIPAC that dominates the country foreign policy. Here in Britain, 80% of the leading party’s MPs are CFI members (Conservative Friends of Israel). The situation in France and Canada is similar. So as much as Zionism is foreign to Israelis, it is pretty relevant for Diaspora Jews.
With AIPAC pushing in the open for an American attack on Iran, Zionism seems to be a serious threat to world peace. And yet, somehow, it is the so-called Jewish Anti Zionists who go out of their way to silence any criticism of Zionist lobbies and Jewish power within Western politics.
As much as Levy is correct in suggesting that Zionism may be dead for Israel, it is certainly alive and kicking in the West. It is probably the most influential and dangerous political school of thought. Especially because it has managed to drift away from the relatively modest notion of a ‘promised land’ into a globally belligerent expansionist ideology aiming at a ‘promised planet.’
Open Letter to Murray McCully: Invitation to support international law regarding Israel’s trading practices
30 April 2012
Dear Mr McCully,
The fifth-biggest UK food retailer and biggest Co-operative Group in Europe has ceased trading with suppliers that are linked to Israeli settlements. The Co-op’s decision will immediately hit four suppliers, Agrexco, Arava Export Growers, Adafresh and Mehadrin, Israel’s largest agricultural export company. The reason for the Society’s action is that Mehadrin sells its produce from illegal settlements, including Beqa’ot in the Occupied Jordan Valley. Furthermore, grapes and dates packaged in the settlement are illegally labelled ‘Produce of Israel’. In addition, Mehadrin’s role in providing water to settlement farms (illegal under international law) and its relationship with the Israeli state water company, Mekorot, makes the company complicit in Israel’s ethnically discriminatory allocation of water. This discrimination inflicts much hardship on the Palestinian people.
In your statement supporting Israel’s application for admission to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) you claimed that it was important to the process of what you called “dialogue” with the Zionist state. The Palestine Human Rights Campaign (PHRC) would like to offer you the opportunity to demonstrate how such dialogue has so far succeeded in persuading Israel to adhere to the norms of civilised trading, OECD rules and international law. In other words, are you able to show that Israel’s admission to the OECD has in anyway modified its behaviour?
An International Women’s Peace Service (IWPS) base in Deir Istiya has informed us that the West Bank village recently received notice from the Israeli Army that it will be uprooting 1400 village trees on May 1. IWPS has drafted an online petition concerning this that is addressed to the Israeli PM and the Israeli Ministries of Defence and the Environment. Uprooting trees is one of the many strategies the Israeli government uses in its attempts to suppress the spirit of Palestinians trying to continue to live in their homeland. Is there any reason why the New Zealand Government should not also bring pressure to bear on the Israeli government to observe international standards of decency?
We ask you to state (with your reasons) whether or not you agree or disagree with the following statement:
The Israeli government’s vindictive and unnecessary acts of economic and agricultural sabotage in belligerently occupied territories are crimes against humanity. They demonstrate clearly the Zionist state’s present unsuitability for membership of the OECD. Such acts are certain to strengthen support for the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and it would be in Israel’s own best interests to reform its behaviour. There is never any excuse for failing to abide by the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Visitors to our website, both at home and internationally, will be very interested to read your response to this Open Letter.
Palestine Human Rights Campaign, Aotearoa/New Zealand www.palestine.org
Dershowitz is correct – CNN and The New York Times are not the problem. As Dershowitz says, “we (the Jews, I guess) can handle that.” The real problem, according to Dershowitz is Gilad Atzmon. Unlike the CNN and The NY Times, that can be easily pressured by the lobby, I am indeed fascinated by truth seeking, peace and justice.
I guess that by the time ethnic cleansing advocate Dershowitz stops lying about my book and its content, he may grasp why leading humanists are siding with me rather than him.
For the time being, we are left with Dershowitz’ acknowledgment that I am Israel’s biggest Problem. I believe that considering myself being a Jazz artist, this is slightly over the top. However, I guess that this statement alone may sell a few more copies of The Wandering Who.